Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which psychiatrists or psychologists have publicly commented on Donald Trump's mental fitness and what did they say?
Executive summary
Multiple psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly commented on Donald Trump’s mental fitness over the past decade, with a prominent group warning of dangerous traits (e.g., “malignant narcissism”) and individual clinicians both criticizing and defending his fitness [1] [2]. Leading voices who have spoken out include psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, who has repeatedly warned Trump’s behavior is dangerous and called for containment [3] [4], while others — including some leaders of professional bodies — caution against armchair diagnosis and endorse restraint under the Goldwater Rule [2] [5].
1. The organized caution: “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” and allied psychiatrists
A coordinated body of mental‑health professionals published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and later follow‑ups in which dozens of psychiatrists and clinicians argued that Trump displays traits (often described as malignant narcissism or psychopathic features) that make him dangerous in office; the book and related articles frame this as a duty to warn despite ethical tensions with the Goldwater Rule [1] [6] [7].
2. Bandy X. Lee — the alarmed forensic psychiatrist who persisted
Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic and social psychiatrist, has repeatedly warned that Trump’s psychological insecurity and paranoia increase the risk of dangerous behavior and has urged external containment and institutional responses; she organized conferences, co‑authored books in 2017 and 2024, and continues to publish and speak publicly on these risks [3] [8] [4].
3. Clinicians who urged removal or stronger political remedies
Some mental‑health professionals went beyond clinical descriptions to argue for political remedies. Psychologist John D. Gartner and other signatories of petitions and organized groups asserted Trump’s condition rendered him unfit and in some formulations urged removal, while the contributors to the 2017/2018 volume called for discussion of constitutional mechanisms such as the Twenty‑Fifth Amendment [2] [6] [7].
4. Countervailing voices and professional‑ethics constraints
Major professional norms resisted this movement. The American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule — barring psychiatrists from offering professional opinions about public figures they have not examined — has been cited repeatedly as a reason for clinicians to refrain; prominent figures such as Sir Simon Wessely have warned that armchair diagnoses are “facile” without inside information [2] [5] [7].
5. Defenders and politically aligned clinicians
Not all mental‑health commentaries painted Trump as unfit. Some physicians and commentators — including a White House physician reporting an April physical and cognitive assessment as “excellent” — have publicly defended his fitness, and some Republican public figures have echoed that assessment; these contrasting statements have been part of the public debate [9].
6. What specific claims have been made about symptoms and diagnoses?
Across the critical literature, clinicians have described patterns they associate with narcissistic personality traits, pathological lying, lack of empathy, impulsivity, paranoia and, in some chapters, psychopathy; however, contributors to the collections and reviews note disagreement about precise diagnoses even among critics [10] [1] [7].
7. The media and secondary analysts: psychologists describing societal effects
Beyond diagnosing Trump, psychologists and clinicians have documented a “Trump effect” on the public’s mental health — increases in anxiety, stress, and therapy demand tied to political events — and some clinicians describe patients experiencing significant distress linked to Trump’s actions or rhetoric [11] [12] [13].
8. Limits of the available reporting and open questions
Available sources show extensive commentary but also emphasize disagreements within the mental‑health field: whether public warning is ethical or effective, whether diagnosable disorder can be established without examination, and which institutional remedies are appropriate [7] [2]. Sources do not provide a single, authoritative clinical diagnosis established by a direct, consensual examination of Trump — that is not found in current reporting [2] [7].
9. How to read competing agendas in these statements
Critics like Dr. Lee and contributors to The Dangerous Case often frame their work as a “duty to warn,” prioritizing public safety; professional bodies and some clinicians emphasize ethics and the risk of politicizing psychiatry, which protects patient‑care standards and institutional trust [3] [7] [2]. Political actors and allied clinicians who defend Trump have incentives to minimize concerns; the White House’s public fitness statements sit alongside independent clinical warnings [9] [3].
10. Practical takeaway for readers
If you want a concise list of named commentators found in these sources: Bandy X. Lee is the most prominent critic [3] [4]; John D. Gartner and many contributors appear in the Dangerous Case project [6] [2]; leaders of professional organizations like Sir Simon Wessely and the APA counsel restraint and adherence to the Goldwater Rule [5] [7]. For definitive clinical conclusions based on direct examination, available sources do not mention any peer‑reviewed consensus diagnosis resulting from an authorized psychiatric evaluation [2] [7].